Recent posts by issendorf on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

I don’t agree with that – I think it should be illegal to hide your donors. That’s just how the system is right now. The emails are a different issue that I’m not up to date with. Last I heard she released the servers? they were on or something like that.

Completely agree – private non-profits should absolutely have the right to keep their donor list private.

However, two points:

1) She said she would disclose the complete list and then backtracked on that public statement.
2) When you enter public office, you often have to (whether it be legally or for the good of the public) disclose information that run of the mill organizations/people don’t. She wanted to be a Senator, run for President and accepted the bid to be SoS. She knew what she was signing up for.\

Yeah, they had the final say.

If I may ask, where are you getting it? The referenced article uses the word “Congress” once, and it has nothing to do with them approving the transaction. This article mentions that Congress was concerned about the deal and was planning to draft legislation to kill it.

Pretty much every news agency is saying that in order for the deal to be closed, it had to be approved by that council of cabinet members. I can’t find anything that says Congress voted on this.

You really don’t have any grounds to say that. The article makes it pretty clear Hillary was working according to White House goals at the time.

That’s fair.

What, so if it’s not from one multimillionaire/billionaire in Russia it doesn’t count? That is oddly specific.

Sure it counts. It’s just when it’s from the Kremlin it’s a more problematic.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

YOU certainly are presuming far too much and basing it on far too little.

You given no positive reason to vote for her. As much as demographics favor the Democrats, running a candidate who has seemingly zero positives doesn’t seem like the best strategy.

So, should I infer that you are now supporting HRC above all of the rest?

You shouldn’t!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

My understanding of history is that such politics is the theme by which most nations have been “governed”. The wealthy pay their stooges very well … and expect them to be very fruitful for them. The wealthy give a shit if their lackeys get some sticky fingers and help themselves to the “take”. The sin is in getting caught.

I can’t take you seriously when you’ll be blindly voting for the worst offender of money in politics in a year and a half.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Of course, groups/people they haven’t disclosed won’t be on there, but that goes without saying. Still, your statement is false.

Hardly. When you omit names from the donor list, you haven’t released the donor list – you’ve released the names that are politically palatable for the public to see. That’s the same false logic of the people who say Hillary released her emails. She didn’t release them – she released printouts of the emails she was ok with the public seeing and she’s using that same standard for the donors to the Clinton Foundation.

To think our top diplomat was engaged in foreign business relations involving money is so banal that my yawns have yawns. Quid-pro-quo is what negotiation IS. Mutual benefits.

As SoS, her duty is to put America’s interests ahead of her personal interests. Instead, she focused on enriching her and her husband.

The deal got approved by congress, according to the article.

I’m not see that in the article? What I’m seeing is top members from the cabinet, including Clinton, were the ones who had the final say. “Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.”

Congress didn’t seem to be aware of the deal until after it was approved.

5 seconds on google. It isn’t tens of millions to a single person, but as you pointed out, the Clintons are big fishes and senators not quite as much.

Should have been more specific – foreign persons. It’s hard to have much of a problem with PACs since most if not all of those corporations are massive multinationals who do business in the US. And I’d wager a guess that none of those Senators received money from a bank with ties to the Kremlin.

Have I ever said I liked her or wanted her as president?

Have I ever said that you did? I merely stated I loved the mindset of you and karma defending her.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

That’s like what 99.9999% of what every senator and house representative do every day, except for themselves to campaign for re-election.

Completely false equivalence. They’re not taking foreign donations. It’s a big difference. Also, those senators and reps disclose those campaign donations. The Clintons haven’t released their donor list.

To think that our top diplomat engaged in apparent quid-pro-quo corruption with foreign entities as no big deal is mind blowing. Her foundation solicited donations from foreign entities that often conflicted with national foreign interests. That’s a major problem, especially when you consider the consensus was allowing Russia to acquire Uranium One would be bad for American interests and the deal went through anyway.

All our politicians are corrupt and can be bought.

Find me one other politician who has raised tens of millions of dollars from foreign entities. Shouldn’t be too hard for you to do since they’re all corrupt and can be bought, right?

I love how you and karma are just sort of rationalizing Clinton’s bad behavior as “Aw shucks, everyone is corrupt. She can’t help it – it’s built into the system!” The Clintons are two of the most corrupt people in Washington. Comparing them to your average member of Congress is the equivalent of comparing Mike Trout to a Little Leaguer.

The deal wasn’t a secret in any way.

The deal isn’t the scandal. The money trail is the scandal and that was completely secret.

I’m not defending Hillary.

Your words beg to differ.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

I don’t like Hillary, but to be honest, that article seems to be pretty non scandalous.

Seriously? The Secretary of State uses her office to solicit contributions to her charitable (I use that word in the loosest manner possible) foundation. Not only that, Clinton, as she is wont to do in terms of ignoring the law, didn’t disclose those contributions made by the Uranium One to either the White House or the State Department. I’ll be generous and say it’s simply a massive conflict of interest rather than saying it stinks of bribery and corruption, but to not disclose that is indefensible and is entirely scandalous.

To put it in perspective of how crooked this is, Hillary wouldn’t all the U.S. to build a gas pipeline into Canada, but she’ll allow a Russian company to buy a Canadian company that will very likely ship American uranium to Iran.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Do you think Christie is going to run? I’ll have to look up some of the other “tolerable” ones you mentioned and get back on that.

I think he probably will. Then he’ll give like 6th in New Hampshire and that will be the end of him. He’ll play the role of Jon Huntsman admirably.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Enjoy Hillary lovers.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

You’re probably right. For some reason I wasn’t considering who else might enter the race on the GOP side. There’s still plenty of time for someone who isn’t absolutely crazy to come forward.

Rubio isn’t that bad! And Jeb and Fiorina I would think aren’t that terribly objectionable. If Kasich runs, he’d be fairly tolerable I imagine as well.

Cruz and Carson are the only truly batshit crazy ones IMO (well and Rand I suppose, but I love Rand so be gentle with him please).

EDIT: Forget Perry, Jindal and Huckabee. They’re terrible too.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

I said she is a good DEBATOR.

Except she isn’t. Go back and watch some of the 2007-2008 primary debates. She was utterly dreadful. She’s ok when the situation is scripted, and even then she isn’t that good (watch that presser after the email scandal; it’s almost painful to watch how she flails for any sort of good answer). She’s a colossal failure at improv, a key skill to be a good debater.

her opponents are likely going to be just that bad.

Unlikely. The Republican candidate will almost certainly have charisma, a quality Hillary Clinton lacks. The Republicans may not win, but it won’t be because they look worse publicly than Clinton.


There are more Democrats than Republicans

Even more important than that is how dominate the Democrats are in terms of the Electoral College. The Democrats have around 240 votes that they can almost guarantee 18 months before the election, meaning the Republicans have to pretty much sweep all of the swing states which is a pretty tall feat. That’s why no matter how poorly Hillary inevitably performs, she’ll still be the favorite (possibly a significant one) to win in 2016.

any candidate the GOP fields for its nominee is going to have to be so batshit insane that they alienate everyone who is not staunchly conservative.

A cute meme, but judging by the fact that they nominated incredibly moderate candidates the last two elections (and who are by all measures not batshit insane), that this won’t actually be the case.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by issendorf:

Oh let him have this jhco. It’s actually kind of adorable that he thinks Hillary is a good campaigner and is oblivious to the fact she has as much of a personality as a bowl of oatmeal.

Hey, at least it would be better than four years with Mitt “porridge” Romney.

Imagine how titillating Mittens v Hillary would have been.

Thanks Obama.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Watch that hyperbole Karma.

Oh let him have this jhco. It’s actually kind of adorable that he thinks Hillary is a good campaigner and is oblivious to the fact she has as much of a personality as a bowl of oatmeal.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Says a lot; pretty much what my answer to issendorf was … eh?

It’s pretty damning that the chief reason you’re voting for her is you don’t like the opposition, rather than stating a positive (are there any?) about her.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

So do you think that Elizabeth Warren would make a more plausible candidate?

Not more plausible (Elizabeth Warren will never be President), but far more closely aligned with the Progressive movement, and far more likeable. I disagree with the lady on everything, but I love listening to her because she’s one of about 8 people in Washington who seems truly authentic.

It would be fascinating to see how the Democratic party would deal with Warren v. Clinton: the candidate everyone likes and mostly agrees with (but can’t win) vs. the candidate people have lukewarm, at best, support for but has, at the absolute worst, a 50-50 chance of winning the White House.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

I don’t really see your point

You’re raging against the wealth and their government lackeys, and you’re taking action by voting for… the biggest lackey of the wealthy of them all. Just pointed out the hypocrisy there. Not only will she get gobs of money from your version of Satan (Wall Street), she’s getting money from foreign donors via the Clinton Initative. Just super sketchy, and you’re going to just have to roll over and take it.

Again, enjoy dealing with all that cognitive dissonance.

Oh …. I luv the smell of hyperbole so early in the evening.

Oh come on. We both know Sen. Warren is far more closely aligned with the base of the Democratic party than Clinton is. The left loves warren; they only tolerate Clinton because they know she can win.

CONSISTANTLY?

Here you go. 8 of the top 10 are Democrats. The Kochs are 50th. Certainly they’re a big player in a boogeyman, but if you’re looking for the culprits of big money in politics, look to your labor union of choice.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

The country is FINALLY waking up to just how screwed they are getting by the rich and their govt. lackeys — of BOTH parties.

Because nothing says “we’re sick of the wealthy and the politically powerful” by voting for Hillary Clinton. The least they could do is nominate Elizabeth Warren so that, at the very least, the Democratic party’s platform isn’t completely incompatible with the person they nominate.

They are beginning to understand that when the mega-rich Koch Bro’s official representatives, the Amer. for Prosperit

Not only has the fear over the Kochs been disproven consistently over time, Clinton is on track to spend $2.5 billion – far more than any Republican will. Have fun dealing with that cognitive dissonance.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

When she was trotted out it was a matter of weeks before she became the laughing stock of liberal politics.

FTFY

If you claim that Clinton is “patently unlikeable,” what do you mean?

She strikes me as incredibly cold and completely inauthentic; Mittens looks downright cuddly in comparison to Hillary. She’ll get lots of votes and lots of money, but she won’t be adored the way Bill Clinton or Obama were.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

When the news broke, I had a look at a range of opinion pieces and blogs. Being a woman did seem to be an issue on some of them. I know you can write them off as just blogs, but it’s idiots with big mouths who elect leaders just as much as any other group.

And I’d guess 100% of those people are people who aren’t going to vote for a Democrat regardless. The ~ 20% of people in the middle I don’t think are going to be swayed one way or the other by the unique sexual organs Hillary Clinton possesses. Identity politics plays far less of a role than is sometimes perceived.

That said, if there are a handful of people who will vote against Hillary because she’s a woman, that will still pale in comparison to the number who would vote for her because she’s a woman. People love to be part of history after all.


Look what the Republicans did? They recruited Sarah Palin, the laughing stock of political theater. She was wholly unprepared for the political circus and had McCain recruited someone with more bulldog experience things might have gone very differently. McCain was not entirely disliked by centrist Democrats… but NOBODY liked Palin. It was a WTF moment in American politics and it helped get Obama elected.

This is just patently false. The GOP base loved Palin; McCain would have lost by 20 points without her (it’s hard to articulate just how universally disliked McCain actually was in ’08 among the right).

I do believe that her gender could be uniquely valuable in her election bid. There’s some liberal appeal to the idea of electing a woman. It’s certainly a demonstration of our willingness, as a nation, to allow for a presidency by either gender. That could serve to embolden more girls into careers in male-dominated areas.

Frankly, liberals don’t give a damn about electing a female president; they care about electing a Democratic president. Period. If they did care about getting a woman elected into a powerful office, they wouldn’t have called Sarah Palin a bitch or a cunt, among other pleasantries. They can justify voting for a patently unlikelable candidate in Hillary Clinton because of “history,” but the fact is, Democrats are flocking to her because she’s their only chance at the White House, not because she has ovaries.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Setting aside the asinine inference that the right hates female leaders (many would kill to have, say, Maggie Thatcher reincarnated and dropped into Washington), is America ready for a female president? Sure.

Is America ready for another bad president after 16 years of ineptitude in the White House? God I hope not.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / United States advancements "Vermont Edition"

Both are patently false of course, even though scientific literature has been repeatedly proven to be incorrect about the topic for decades.

Edited for accuracy.

On topic, pretty cool work by Burlington. It’s not a feasible goal for most metropolitan areas in this country and as I’m sure they were showered with tax subsidies and tax credits means that’s likely still not economically feasible on larger scales yet either.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / PotUS' SotUA

It’s a lot like Cameron addressing parliament. Everything that suits his policies gets discussed, rabble rousing gets a field trip, and reality doesn’t get a look-in.

The State Opening of Parliament is essentially the historical basis for the SOTU’s existence.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / PotUS' SotUA

State of the Union addresses are utterly meaningless, even more so with a lame duck president. Virtually everything he proposed won’t get through a Republican Congress and he said he’d veto most of the things that the Republicans ran on in 2014.

These things (as well as the approximately 87 Republican responses) are all pomp and circumstance – there is no substance to be taken seriously.

All that being said, it was one of the more interesting SOTU addressed the President has given (I was stunned I lasted an entire 40 minutes before I turned it off out of sheer boredom), so it had that going for it at least.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Remove all social safety nets!

If the safety net was not there, what options would you be left with?

Long-term disability insurance is a thing, not to mention being able to sue the other driver for copious amounts of money. Not that I’m advocating for the removal of all social safety nets, but there are private solutions as well, including the large number of private charities who help people in such scenarios.

It has strict usage limitations,

In theory, yes. However, like all government programs that have “strict usage limitations,” fraud is pretty common and easy to get away with.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

The Congressional voter turnout was the lowest since WWII

And what’s your point exactly? Who’s to say that if the millennials who can’t find jobs would continue to vote for the Democrats? I hate to break it you karma, but people under 30 aren’t quite as enamored with this President as you seem to believe.

most of the wins were by narrow margins.

What exactly are you basing this off of? Most of the races were decidedly not that close. Gubernatorial elections were even more lopsided. I couldn’t find an aggregate of the House races, but I’d assume they were even more lopsided with all the gerrymandering. I mean, the races that were supposed to be close (Kansas, Kentucky, Georgia) were decidedly not. Hell, Gillespie wasn’t supposed to finish within 10 points and he almost won the damn thing.

Unless you’re basing it off of historical results (in which case, please share because that sounds like a fascinating read).

But, this is the real kicker as to why the Senate isn’t a lock for the GOP after ‘16:
“Republicans will have to defend 24 seats as compared to just 10 for Democrats in 2016. And, the raw numbers don’t even tell the whole story. Seven seats currently held by Republican incumbents — Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — were all carried by President Obama in 2008 and 2012. And there is chatter about potential Republican retirements in Arizona and Iowa; if either John McCain or Chuck Grassley decided to call it a career, each of those races would be major Democratic targets."

GOP won statewide elections in Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin already so what will they automatically be unable to win these seats in 2 years? After all, if a Republican wins the Presidency, that candidate will need to win those states and, by default, the Republican Senators will likely win those elections off of the President Elect’s coattails.

And, a lot of the GOP’s hopes for the Oval Office can be dashed by who the Democrats run as their candidate. The GOP won’t have Obama to build their hatred on.

As opposed to Barack Obama who didn’t use America’s hatred of George W. Bush at all, right?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / I am damn tired of Obamacare. Now it's time for the correction. :)

However, the video did reveal that Gruber didn’t ACTUALLY CALL the American public stupid; he said “lack of transparency can be a huge political advantage”

Yes, he didn’t say, “The American public is stupid.” However, if you use some pretty basic context clues and do some inferring (you can do it!!!), it’s quite clear that’s exactly what he’s saying. I suppose perhaps all of use stoopid voters just can’t understand his immense MIT wordsmithing?

and that if the American public saw the ACA as a tax, it wouldn’t have been passed. That is when he said the public could be called stupid or whatever YOU want.

Funnily enough, it was the Republicans who pointed out what the White House seems to have willingly lied about – that it was a tax. Your heroes on the left lambasted the Republicans for analysis that turned out to be accurate. I mean you can try to spin it every way you want (you’re ideologue, I’d expect nothing else). The fact remains, your heroes in the White House look fucking awful. There’s no saving this – what little goodwill the President has (which he’ll completely squander with executive immigration action that looks sketchy on a number of fronts) is likely all but gone.

And, in a later explanation, he was spot on when he clarified that inference to being a basic exploitation of woeful lack of economic understanding by the American ppl.

Totally agree. After all, we re-elected Barack Obama. You don’t do that if you have a basic understanding of economic policies. We have the President we deserve – it’s a shame we don’t deserve something better.

Side note: it’s also really nice of Mr. Gruber to mention that health care subsidies were never meant for the federal exchange. Going to make that much harder for the Feds to win King v. Burwell and one step closer to elimianting this miserable piece of legislation.